Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Basically, it's the responsibility of completionists to make sure all the achievements are obtainable before buying a game. After all, there are multiple reasons why it might be impossible to get every achievement in a game (they could be tied to supporting a game on Kickstarter before release, or to online features that are no longer active, or intentionally made impossible to obtain by the devs as a joke, or yes, depend on DLC that is no longer purchasable).
You Sega goofs make no sense. I already said I have all of the Sonic achievements as well; but to blatantly sell a platform with FULL GAMES missing, where the most achieved achievement is one of those removed games, hmm... Sounds like a bit of a problem. Certainly a problem for Sega where they will be getting asked why the ♥♥♥♥ there are achievements for Sonic games that don't exist in a Sega collection.
Did you even bother to consider the logic of anything you typed out there before hitting "Post"?
And any game that makes achievements unobtainable should remove those achievements... What is even the point in having the system in place if you can just remove content without altering aspects that advertise non-existent content in the game? What if someone browsed the achievements to get an idea of what games there are and bought it based on the fact that all the Sonic games are there? It certainly wouldn't be a fault of the person purchasing it. You would expect there to be Sonic games if those are listed as achievements.
As a semi completionist I think they should remove them, removed access to 100% is much worse than removing an already obtained achievement, joke achievements that are unobtainable also should not be a thing.
He also thinks removing the games isn't a bad thing.
The point is they aren't unobtainable for the vast, vast majority of people who own this collection (most likely for the vast majority of people who will ever own this collection).
Secondly, the only people I've seen complain about this are people who already own the Sonic games in this collection. They're getting offended on behalf of people who don't really exist, as far as we know.
Third, Less than one percent of the people who have the whole collection got all the achievements. "Completionists" are an extreme minority, and the vast majority of those who will buy the collection in the future will neither notice nor care that they aren't abe to get a few of the achievements.
Fourth, like I said, there are several reasons why some achievements in a game might be unobtainable (as I have mentioned). Any "completionist" knows this already, and is therefore already likely wary of such games. The ability to obtain all achievements is important to them, subjectively. They are not owed obtainable achievements by game studios.
It's a bit hypocritical of you to refer to my examples as "niche" when the desire to get every achievement in one's games (especially in all of one's games) is also very niche. Again, about 0.7% of the owners of this collection got all the achievements, and they aren't even particularly difficult to get.
But the point is it doesn't matter if unobtainable achievements are uncommon. It can and does happen, for a variety of reasons. A game containing unobtainable achievements doesn't cross any legal, ethical or moral lines. Their significance is entirely subjective. It's fine if you don't like them. You're allowed to not like whatever you want. But nobody is being wronged by them existing.
It's not. At least, not inherently. It's obviously not a problem for you or me (who already have the achievements). You're just choosing (and it is a choice) to present it as a problem on behalf of a theoretical group of people who, if they exist at all, are an extreme minority.
They'll be fine. They've made FAR worse decisions that have led to far greater consequences.
I disagree. I earned those achievements fair and square and there is zero reason why they should be taken away from me. And if I hadn't gotten them yet, I would still like that option to be available. Literally the only reason to remove them is to accommodate a theoretical group of people who would form a maximum of 0.7% of all future sales (and likely much less, as most people interested in playing these game bought the collection at some point over the last 12 years, possibly at a heavy discount as it's been on sale many times). And that's "future sales" of a collection that likely hasn't been selling many copies at all in the last few years. There isn't a huge untapped market for this collection.
The point is the system works fine for those who have the content (who form the grand majority of people who will ever own this collection).
Then they didn't do their due diligence, as the list of included games does not include the Sonic games.
You would expect wrong, then.
No, they absolutely should be a thing. Video games are an infinitely malleable medium. Devs can make more or less whatever creative decisions they want for whatever reasons they want, and that's a good thing (one of my favorite things about video games, in fact). I think devs making a statement (which can be a joke but doesn't have to be) by making an achievement impossible to obtain is a clever and imaginative way to play with player expectations and gaming conventions. It's not for you to decide that devs' creativity "should" be limited just because some creative decisions offend your sensibilities, especially when you can avoid games that do things you don't like by making a minimal effort to get informed before buying them.
Remember, SEGA is still selling this for money and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
The only time an achievement should ever be "unobtainable" in a video game is if the player lacks the adequate skills required to complete them. I mean, who cares if I can't obtain certain achievements because I'm not good enough to get them? I see absolutely no problem with that whatsoever.
Not buying a Sonic game before it got de-listed isn't skill, it's getting the game before a certain date and even then, Sonic related achievements aren't handed to you just because you have them in your library; you still need to complete the associated tasks to get them.
False equivalences here; achievements, unlike the actual video games themselves, are not a form of art and purely exist as personal accomplishments a player makes. What's "creative" about an achievement in a video game? Exactly.
Hot take, but personally, despite everything I've said before, I really do not care for achievements, nor do I care about a 100% achievement list as you don't really get anything out of them outside of maybe any intrinsic enjoyment you get from them. The reason I actually care about stuff like Need for Speed Carbon's reward cards or Brawl's challenges is because they do unlock extra content by completing in-game tasks.
But you don't speak for them. They don't have the same perspective as you. They don't share your priorities and opinions about achievements. It's not for you to be offended on their behalf. You're inventing a problem just to complain about it.
Indeed, and what they sell is what you get.
There is no "should", only what you prefer. And you are welcome to stick to purchasing games that do things the way you prefer. What you do not get to do is dictate limits on developer choices to suit your subjective tastes.
Several developers have proven you wrong, treating achievements as an extension of the game which they used to creative effect. Again: Video games are an infinitely malleable medium, it's not for you to decide what limits they "should" adhere to.
Plenty, potentially. The Stanley Parable was tremendously creative with its achievement implementation; In terms of how they are communicated/described, how they link to the themes of the game and what the player is asked to do to obtain them (I actually put the game aside and didn't play it for five years just to get a particular achievement legitimately).
One of my favorite creative implementations of an achievement was in Double Dragon Neon. The achievement itself wasn't special (it was for beating the game), but the genius of it was that during the ending sequence when Skullmaggedon is singing the ending theme, at one point he congratulates you and sings "Here's a trophy for you" at which point the notification pops up during the song. It was such a small detail but it demonstrated both the attention to detail and the sense of humor of the developers and I loved it.
Narrative-focused "Where the Water Tastes Like Wine" used an intentionally impossible achievement to make a point. From Kotaku:
https://kotaku.com/impossible-steam-achievement-has-a-great-story-1847363203
And that's to say nothing about how achievements can add depth to a game and encourage players to play in ways they normally wouldn't and appreciate mechanics they might never have otherwise even noticed. So forgive me if I don't share your lack of imagination when it comes to the creative potential of achievements.
affects their completion %, so say they had 100% completion on their steam games, now it will be 99 unless they can get access to the sonic games. I was also just speaking on my personal feelings on the matter, having no way to hit 100% bugs me way more than having an achievement removed. Theres the downside to it anyways.
So I guess it goes the same for joke achievements, affects the players % or give them ocd or bothers the player on 100%ing, which is on the player a little I suppose, but it's also a really ♥♥♥♥♥♥ thing for a dev to do, just don't include achievements if that's how you feel about them. If the dev wants to put unobtainable achievements then there should be a way to opt out, or maybe have some sort of warning on the store page (which would ruin their unfunny joke I suppose, but maybe a toggle people could check and have the dev required to mark it for those who care, although obvious steam doesn't really care about achievements and the amount of devs that do this is small)
I wouldn't say it's clever to make an achievement unobtainable btw, equivalent of leaving your game broken, just annoying.
Just to be clear: There is absolutely nothing wrong with achievements being important to someone. There is nothing wrong with someone committing themselves to getting every achievement in every game they own. There is nothing wrong with someone deriving great personal satisfaction from having a 100% achievement completion rate on their Steam account. But (and this is important), they are not owed obtainable achievements. If being able to get all achievements is important to them, personally, then it is their personal responsibility to make sure the achievements in any game they buy are obtainable. They are not wronged by the existence of unobtainable achievements.
There is! Don't buy those games. That's your opt-out. Devs can do whatever they want with their games, and it is a stone-cold guarantee that there will ALWAYS exist games that do things you don't approve of. If any of these things are deal-breakers, then it's your responsibility to make a minimal effort to get informed before buying a game that might trigger you. Importantly, we aren't owed anything, certainly not game features tailored to our personal preferences.
You're obsessed with being owed things and the word inherently lol, every single one of your posts, damn.
Just saying my opinion, devs shouldn't be allowed to put in basically broken achievements on purpose, IMO.